From: owner-frc-digest To: frc-digest@nvg.unit.no Subject: frc-digest V1 #348 Reply-To: frc Errors-To: owner-frc-digest Precedence: bulk frc-digest Wednesday, 29 November 1995 Volume 01 : Number 348 Rule 48:21 is VALID Rule 48:10b was INVALID Re: How 48:16 affects play. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Laurent Bossavit" Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 01:29:12 +0001 Subject: Rule 48:21 is VALID - -[Rule 48:21 by Bruce Tue, 28 Nov 06:14:20 VALID 1 SPs]- I look over my shoulder and wiggle my nose at the arena's entrance as I step in, and sparkling mage-fire spreads across the portal. I have cast SHOTGUN WEB upon the next mage who enters, whom in my idiom I shall name Secundus. We shall know when someone has entered next (and by what name e calls e'self) upon the first spell e casts in this arena. SHOTGUN WEB shall cause Secundus's spells that effect but one mage to fail until Secundus successfully casts a spell upon multiple mages. - -[Rule End]- - -[Comments]- Validity : no problems. Style : not bad, but probably not very effective either, considering that New Players have less than 10 hours left to enter as of this writing. I like the style though. - -*-*-*-*-*- Morendil ------------------------------ From: "Laurent Bossavit" Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 01:29:12 +0001 Subject: Rule 48:10b was INVALID With my apologies : - -[Rule 48:10b by Dave INVALID 2.5 SPs]- The Validity of Waggie's last I do not know; no judgment's been passed. And so, to cross the Zones of Time I hereby cast this Spell in rhyme. Upon Vanyel, Stein, Ronald and Jeremy I cast, This spell to increase your magical mass. The spell's name, Black Hole, does imply That also toward you shall all spells fly. Thus, you see, no matter at whom A spell is sent, it's also YOUR doom. The original victim will also be striken, But around you the layers of spells will soon thicken. - -[Rule End]- - -[Comments]- Validity : Dave was absolutely right, I _did_ miss this Rule. I don't know how I managed, but I did. 48:8 makes this INVALID (fortunate in a way, since otherwise I would have had to recalculate validity for all further Rules and probably got a lot of people angry at me). As compensation, I will not figure it in Dave's eligibility status. Sorry again. Style : the least I can do is acknowledge that it was a very good Rule indeed. Not short enough, but deserving in all other respects. Did I mention how sorry I am ? - -*-*-*-*-*- Morendil ------------------------------ From: "Laurent Bossavit" Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 01:49:36 +0001 Subject: Re: How 48:16 affects play. Dug sez: > I have just recently cast a multiple-target spell (48:23). By the wording > of 48:16, "any spell cast by any mage within the [next] 23 hours, must be > cast ... at [me]." Period. Well... Let's say I admit that interpretation as being a tad less far-fetched than the alternative, even if I consider it somehow wrong. What I've already pointed out, and which y'all seem to be missing, is that an FRC Judge is _supposed_ to be creative in eir interpretation of Rules. Before you turn on the flamethrower, please note that if I were to Judge Rules in the strictest English-language interpretation, none of the Rules of this Round would be VALID. There's no such thing as Spells or Mages in our real world, so there's no way 'casting a Spell' can be taken literally. I have to use my imagination as to what that means. I believe the same goes for many Rounds past. In the present case, we've so far taken 'casting a Spell' to mean 'putting a restriction upon the stated target'. Rule 48:16 breaks with this tradition (but then, most stylish Rules are unconventional) by using a Spell to put a restriction on Players *other* than the target. If I stick to the letter of the Rules, this is of course acceptable, but then I can't see how I can still believe in 'a Spell is a Rule is a Spell'. FRC, like all good fantasy, rests on suspension of disbelief. I think that is more important than a narrow interpretation of the letter of any Rule. However, the opinion of the FRC community is also important and I always (try to) take that into account too. Also, I don't like conditional validity at all. :) As for Spells cast in INVALID Rules : nope, I don't buy it. We've had this controversy many times before, and I've come to the conclusion that it depends on the Theme. A Spell proposed in a Rule that is Judged INVALID is simply never cast (otherwise, it would have had the intended effects, wouldn't it ?). - -*-*-*-*-*- Morendil ------------------------------ End of frc-digest V1 #348 *************************